Flynn judge seeks rehearing by full appeals court after being ordered to dismiss case
(www.washingtonexaminer.com)
Comments (416)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Wait, what??
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020). The opinion was released today that says the 1866 treaty between the Creek Indians and the U.S. in the former Oklahoma Indian Territory and the creation of the State of Oklahoma was imperfect from a Congressional standpoint. Thus, the plaintiff (McGirt), is not subject to the criminal prosecution under State of Oklahoma law because the lines of Oklahoma were imperfectly established when Oklahoma achieved statehood. Because of this imperfection, Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction on any part of tribal land involved in the 1866 treaty. McGirt is not subject to Oklahoma law despite raping children, he should, in fact, according to Gorsuch’s reasoning, be tried by the tribal courts of the Muscogee Creek. What I just said doesn’t even make sense to me, but that’s how I understand his reasoning.
You can read the decision yourself: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-9526#!
Now, I’m seeing Native American rights advocates are about to start using this case as grounds to challenge state authority across America and attempt to take land back from the states where reservations were established.
You're reading jurisdiction too broadly.
Indian cases on Indian land falls under federal jurisdiction (federal courts) rather than state jurisdictions (state courts).
The ruling finds that the paedophile needs to be remanded to the federal court because he is an indian committing statutory rape while on indian land.
The Supreme Court didn't just literally take half of Oklahoma outside of the Union.
That said, I agree with you on the Indian Rights activists. Give these lunatics an inch and they'll take a mile. We passed gay marriage in 2015. In under 5 years, we're courting extreme degeneracy
I’d argue I’m not reading jurisdiction broadly at all. Gorsuch took any legal standing for crimes committed in lands covered with the Treaty with the Creeks-1866 away from Oklahoma, even if they are Creek Indians. The AG of Oklahoma does not have legal standing to prosecute crimes on “tribal lands”, well Tulsa, Oklahoma ain’t exactly “tribal land” anymore and that’s where the crime took place. I’d say Gorsuch’s broad definition of treaty law pretty well effectively takes away half of Oklahoma from Oklahoma’s sovereign rule as an independent state and their ability to carry out justice as it stands for the people of Oklahoma. Samuel Alito said himself that Oklahomans are going to wake up and find out they are now under tribal and federal law instead of state law. That’s a pretty big ratcheting of authority away from the State of Oklahoma.
Not exactly, the OK AG can still bring claims against solely non-US citizens, but Gorsuch essentially gave a close reading of the Indian treaties which are still in effect, and found that the temporal area they encompassed included half of Oklahoma.
That half of Oklahoma now has to apply a bit more federal common law and probably the court of first review would be federal District Court but that's already currently in place anyway under the general application of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Thus the operative question would be whether a federal subject matter jurisdiction applies here, and in this case it could arise on questions of whether the defendant is covered under the Indian treaties and whether the underlying case arose on land covered by the Indian treaties.
I hate it, but Gorsuch is right.
If we want to pull land away from the Indians, we need do it openly and clearly otherwise we leave legal timebombs like this which now leaves the entire state of Oklahoma needs to ask whether federalism still exists there.
Yep. We need to hit emotion driven people screaming "THEY JUST GAVE AWAY HALF OF A STATE" hard.
A few details worth clarifying.
First, the federal government has the power to prosecute the crimes. This just places that power with the feds instead of the states. The same laws apply regardless—meaning that the criminal law and punishments conform to the same law—but the federal government brings the prosecution in federal court. I suppose the Indians can prosecute too, but the federal system definitely can.
Second, Congress can fix all this anytime it wants. But of course that will never happen because of Democrats and worthless, weak and lazy Republicans.
Third, it creates a procedural clusterfuck for sure, unless the tribe does something about it. It could, for example, just agree that all criminal prosecutions by Oklahoma are adopted. The tribal law doesn’t have the ex post facto clause to deal with, so they could do what they want. And the tribe doesn’t like McGirt, they only appealed the question of the status of the treaty.
Fourth, it certainly creates a clusterfuck for Oklahoma but also the tribe outside the criminal law. For example, what about all public services provided by Oklahoma? Would the tribe like those to vanish? Do they want to be charged for them? And what exactly happens to private property? This just gives the tribe negotiating leverage to get a big payoff. Think, reparations for Indians.
PS, I think it is bullshit. But that is how this shakes out.
It is a lot more nuanced than that, and its affects could easily extend to a a plethora of other factors, essentially anything that is not covered by federal government, which is most laws that effect people on a day-to-day basis.
Sales tax, state/property taxes, pretty much every traffic/driving related laws, and local ordinance to name a few.
I could not pay my state taxes this year. Who is going to say anything about it? The "state", which has no jurisdiction? Do I want to drive 85 MPH in a zone that the "state" said I am only allowed to drive 35 MPH in? The federal government doesn't set the speed limits, their is no governmental authority to enforce that I must abide that law, and I could site this case in court if anyone said otherwise.
Am I in jail for being found guilty for the case "Oklahoma v. John Doe"? That authority does not exist where I am or where the crime was committed. The case would need to be re-tried under either tribal law or "The United States v. John Doe", but is this not double-jeopardy?
I don't have the definitive answer for any of these scenarios, but all the implications for them now exist, and there is grounds for each of these to be challenged in court. I am not claiming these will all be the case, but Pandora's Box may have just been opened. A decade ago I might have said "that would never happen", but I am well beyond thinking anything is impossible at this point.
al this to protect their beloved pedo philia these animals make me sick
yes i want manhattan returned OUT of the hands of de blah zero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5d-mHEdL0&t
No joke
yes joke and the people saying it too
they didn't